Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar R @ Chandru vs State By, C.C.B P.S on 16 February, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16384/2025
BETWEEN :
CHANDRASHEKAR R @ CHANDRU
S/O RAMU A.S
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.97, 16TH MAIN, 33RD CROSS
OPP. BENISON SUPER MARKET
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 041
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.R. CHINNASWAMY MANOHAR ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. STATE BY, C.C.B P.S,
BENGALURU
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BANGALORE-560 001
2. MANOJ KUMAR H.V
S/O VEERABHADRAIAH H.M
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT NO.497, 14TH CROSS
2
BALAJI LAYOUT
RAGHUVANAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 079
[RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER
COURT ORDER DATED 09.02.2026] ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAJESH G, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C (FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF BNNS) PRAYING TO GRANT AN ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE/CCB P.S. TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.62/2025 REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 140(2), 308(2), 308(4), 351(2) R/W SECTION 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 AND SECTION 3 OF KCOCA ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE PRL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-1), BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.02.2026, THIS DAY, SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;
3CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CAV ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No.9 under Section 482 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.62/2025 of CCB Bengaluru City Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 140(2), 308(2), 308(4), 351(2), read with Section 3(5) of BNS and Section 3 of Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "KCOC Act" for brevity).
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 -State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned as accused in the FIR. There is no overtact alleged against this petitioner. There are no cases registered against the petitioner for the past 10 years to attract offence under KCOC Act. The petitioner is reputed person in the society 4 and if he is arrested, it will affect his reputation. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Sri B.A. Basavaraja Vs State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.31304/2025 decided on 19.12.2025 on the point that if no case is registered against an accused person within 10 years prior to the commission of the offence then, KCOC Act cannot be invoked against him. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 has no objection for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 -State would contend that in the case on hand, the KCOC Act has been invoked. The offence alleged against the petitioner is an organized crime under Section 3 of the KCOC Act. There is bar under Section 22(3) of the KCOC Act to grant anticipatory bail to the accused person 5 who is alleged to have committed offence under KCOC Act. The Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Bengaluru City has passed Order dated 23.09.2025 invoking offence punishable under Section 3 of the KCOC Act and he has accorded his approval to invoke Section 3 of the KCOC Act. The petitioner is member of Crime Syndicate. The judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel has been challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No(s).57/2026, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed order that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court shall not be relied upon as a binding precedent. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by learned Senior Counsel cannot be relied upon as a binding precedent. As there is bar under Section 22(3) of KCOC Act to entertain a petition seeking anticipatory bail, the present petition is not maintainable. With this, she prayed to reject the petition.
6
6. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
7. As per complaint, the case of the prosecution is that on 26.08.2025 around 06.30 p.m., accused -Rajesh alias Appi and his associate Sheenivas alias Bombay Seena, Naveen, Lokesh alias Loki, Somaiah, Yukesh, Uday Kumar, Gawtham, Chandrashekhar, Vinay, Praveen, Khaleel and Raghavendra alias Raghu alias Bekari Raghu had kidnapped the complainant -Manoj Kumar with an intention of extortion ransom amount from him. When the complainant demanded repayment of the amount given to Nanda Kishore through Rajesh alias Appi, at the instance of petitioner Chandrashekhar, all of them conspired and formed an unlawful assembly, called the complainant through mobile phone to come near Modi Hospital, Rajaji Nagar. The complainant reached the said place around 06.30 p.m., and they forcibly made him to sit in vehicle, 7 took him to Tumkur road till morning. They roamed in the car in Tumkur road and forcibly made him to transfer Rs.76,000/- to their account and Rs.2,20,000/- to account of Sohail and further demanded Rs.10,00,000/- ransom money. Even though the name of the petitioner has not been stated in the FIR, but the investigation indicated his involvement in the commission of the offence. The amount said to have been lent by the complainant to Nanda Kishore is at the behest of the petitioner.
8. The Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Bangalore City has passed the order dated 23.09.2025 accorded his approval to invoke Section 3 of the KCOC Act and appointed ACP, CCB, OCW(West), Bangalore City as Investigating Officer. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner and other accused have sought quashing of the FIR in Criminal Petition No.13647/2025 and subsequently, they withdrew the said petition on 26.09.2025 with liberty to approach the 8 Court in the event of final report is filed. There is bar under Section 22(3) of the KCOC Act to entertain petition seeking anticipatory bail. The said provision is as under:
"Section 22 (3): Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence punishable under this Act."
Considering Section 22(3) of the KCOC Act, petition seeking anticipatory bail cannot be entertained if the offence is alleged under Section 3 of the KCOC Act. The decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner rendered in the case of Sri B.A. Basavaraja (supra) cannot be relied upon as a binding precedent in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 20.01.2026 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed order that the said order of this Court shall not be relied upon as a binding precedent.
9
9. Considering the above aspects, the petition seeking grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP